Curt Doolittle

Theme: Coercion

  • LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T —“How does libertarian/anarcho ca

    LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T

    —“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User

    Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives.

    Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity.

    So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property.

    As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information.

    So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law.

    The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 19:41:00 UTC

  • AN ALTERNATIVE TO TESTIMONIALISM AND WARRANTY by Jon Davis (Humor) I propose sev

    AN ALTERNATIVE TO TESTIMONIALISM AND WARRANTY

    by Jon Davis

    (Humor)

    I propose several things to fix the divide in the country. Mandatory IQ checks. You’re freedom of speech is restricted upon where you fall IQ wise.

    There would be tiers.

    – Tier 1 you can talk about anything.

    – Tier 2 you can talk about anything, but you have to give a disclaimer that you’re tier 2 when talking about science, politics, or religion.

    – Tier 3 you can not talk about science, politics, or religion.

    – Tier 4 you you can not talk about anything except what crayons taste like

    – Tier 5 you are permanently muzzled and denied access to the internet

    Enforcement of these tiers will create jobs and stimulate the economy

    All people must go to race workshops where their skin will be painted the same color as everyone else. Weekly touch ups are mandatory. This will also create jobs and stimulate the economy

    The police force will be comprised primarily of people that have been drafted for a month at a time. The draft will be selected by a lottery. A certain amount of money can be spent every month to avoid this lottery. Bringing in more tax revenue to be used to balance the budget and knock out the debt.

    (rotfl….)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 09:38:00 UTC

  • “None of you seem to understand. I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked

    —“None of you seem to understand. I’m not locked in here with you. You’re locked in here with me.”—

    Either we make them so afraid of the consequences that they accept the terms or it will be the bloodiest civil war in human history.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 20:42:00 UTC

  • Only two cities have any chance of self defense and that’s NYC and DC. Even then

    Only two cities have any chance of self defense and that’s NYC and DC. Even then, the damage 10K armed men would do would be as nearly unrecoverable as artillery.

    Fires are the revolutionary’s reinforcements.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 09:50:00 UTC

  • Rights

    RIGHTS In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have, and willing to help you defend and uphold. One man cannot stand alone against the world. But enough in confederation can hold hostile hordes at bay indefinitely. Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I’ll do the same for yours. The necessary standard to make property rights durable is mutual insurance, not just “respect mine and I’ll respect yours” but “DEFEND mine and I’ll DEFEND yours.” Practically speaking, you can’t have any rights without positive duties and obligations. Libertarians go wrong when they make a distinction between “positive” and “negative” rights. All rights are positive rights because NO rights can be enjoyed without enforcement and defense; and enforcement and defense must be proactive and have positive costs (although the benefits may be greater.) Any claims by libertarians that rights are “natural,” “God-given”, “innate,” “inalienable,” “selfevident,” or anything of the sort are moralistic attempts to obtain rights at a discount, without paying the full cost of asserting, maintaining, and defending them, by convincing others to PROVIDE them at their expense. But there can be no such thing, in practice, as a right not to contribute to the maintenance and defense of rights that one demands. Rights, in practice, have to be maintained and defended. Non-contribution to the maintenance and defense of rights is not conducive to their maintenance and defense. Demands for rights while refusing to enter into reciprocal duties and obligations to defend rights is a violation of reciprocity and an act of parasitism, not conducive to long term cooperation. Without cooperation, no rights can successfully be maintained and defended. Eli Harman

  • Rights

    RIGHTS In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have, and willing to help you defend and uphold. One man cannot stand alone against the world. But enough in confederation can hold hostile hordes at bay indefinitely. Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I’ll do the same for yours. The necessary standard to make property rights durable is mutual insurance, not just “respect mine and I’ll respect yours” but “DEFEND mine and I’ll DEFEND yours.” Practically speaking, you can’t have any rights without positive duties and obligations. Libertarians go wrong when they make a distinction between “positive” and “negative” rights. All rights are positive rights because NO rights can be enjoyed without enforcement and defense; and enforcement and defense must be proactive and have positive costs (although the benefits may be greater.) Any claims by libertarians that rights are “natural,” “God-given”, “innate,” “inalienable,” “selfevident,” or anything of the sort are moralistic attempts to obtain rights at a discount, without paying the full cost of asserting, maintaining, and defending them, by convincing others to PROVIDE them at their expense. But there can be no such thing, in practice, as a right not to contribute to the maintenance and defense of rights that one demands. Rights, in practice, have to be maintained and defended. Non-contribution to the maintenance and defense of rights is not conducive to their maintenance and defense. Demands for rights while refusing to enter into reciprocal duties and obligations to defend rights is a violation of reciprocity and an act of parasitism, not conducive to long term cooperation. Without cooperation, no rights can successfully be maintained and defended. Eli Harman

  • The world doesn’t need American leadership. It needed our defense from european

    The world doesn’t need American leadership. It needed our defense from european imperialism, Communism, and from Communism’s heir, Islamic Fundamentalism. What the world needs is to take on our responsibilities and continue to build the international order of finance and trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-28 02:00:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/990048112046723072

  • The world doesn’t need American leadership. It needed our defense from european

    The world doesn’t need American leadership. It needed our defense from european imperialism, Communism, and from Communism’s heir, Islamic Fundamentalism. What the world needs is to take on our responsibilities and continue to build the international order of finance and trade.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 22:00:00 UTC

  • 7) So imagine something as simple as cutting off EBT (welfare payments) to urban

    7) So imagine something as simple as cutting off EBT (welfare payments) to urban centers by serial overloading (shorting) of power lines, and cutting of transmission lines. That is one of only a hundred similar techniques that do not require armed conflict.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 17:16:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989553937157181440

    Reply addressees: @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989553146035933184

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg 6) And so far, only China, Japan, and Korea, on one end, and America on the other, have resisted the Muslim Conquests. Today muslims are accomplishing through migration what they could not achieve through martial means. It’s just numbers.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/989553146035933184

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg 6) And so far, only China, Japan, and Korea, on one end, and America on the other, have resisted the Muslim Conquests. Today muslims are accomplishing through migration what they could not achieve through martial means. It’s just numbers.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/989553146035933184

  • 1) While historically a small percentage (under 3%) of unwed males have been the

    1) While historically a small percentage (under 3%) of unwed males have been the cause for most revolutions (men being a surplus resource of violence like any other resource) it is trivial at this point in time for very small numbers to bring an end to the american government.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 17:02:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989550338108739584

    Reply addressees: @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989549419107405824

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989549419107405824